Evolutionary psychology

[meadd823]

The idea that selection pressure isn’t alive and well and working exactly as it must is a peculiar view, one that reveals more about our own myopia than anything else.

Fermi's Paradox- + - 1 ADHD brain = no telling what could show up on a post these days.

Some of the interesting stuff I read in the small encyclopedia I read this morning (the afternoon devoted to brain evolution.)

I kind of like this guys approach especially the last sentence. .I picked this one as I have an off-spring who has similar idea it reminded me of her.

I have some ex-male mates I thought had have to come for another planet. . . .I could have been closer than I though


UFO Skeptic

Quote***
The famous physicist, Enrico Fermi, was referring to such an argument when he asked: "Where are they?" Since he was a prominent (and very smart) scientist, his simple question has been given a duly profound name: Fermi's paradox.

The paradox is resolved, of course, if the answer is: "Well, they are already here!" (and possibly have been for a very long time and perhaps have even been involved in the rather sudden emergence of homo sapiens sapiens, but that may be over the top, so ignore that last conjecture if it is too much, though I seem to recall that even Sagan considered that possibility at some point). Their being here -- but surreptitiously -- would answer Fermi and at the same time address a second common objection to the UFO phenomenon by scientists: that the observations indicate such utterly nonsensical, bizarre behavior that it just could not possibly be real. Intelligent visitors just would not pull such disreputable antics as have been reported.


The nature of the reported UFO sightings and encounters, on the contrary, does not reflect the kind of purposeful behavior that we terrestrial scientists would expect from our extraterrestrial colleagues. By some estimates over a million UFO events have been witnessed. Even if one discounts 90 percent as misperceptions or hoaxes, that leaves far too many events to attribute to the kind of careful, sophisticated, efficient, high-tech exploration we scientists would expect from our alien counterparts, especially ones who would necessarily be more advanced than we are to have gotten here in the first place.

The working hypothesis -- and that is all it is -- is thus that we are being monitored by extraterrestrials and that they are coaxing us into awareness of their existence slowly enough to not disrupt our self-centered civilization ("gradually turning up the gain" as one of my colleagues put it). We are beginning to take our first steps into space, and though our primitive behavior -- warfare, terrorism, *****ry, intolerance, senseless violence, greed -- is not yet a danger to any extraterrestrial civilization, it could be someday. It has also been suggested that the diversity of life on our planet constituting a rich genetic bank of living organisms may have something to do with it.

To repeat, this is merely a mental-roadblock-clearing hypothesis. But on the other hand, there is no doubt that the attitude of society has changed dramatically over the last 50 years to the extent that over half the population in the U.S. now believes in the reality of ongoing extraterrestrial visitation of Earth. That was certainly not the case in 1950. If public opinion polls are correct, the average person today appears to be pretty prepared for open contact, while we scientists would be quite jolted if UFOs proved to be real and extraterrestrial. (A nice, safe, distant radio signal from Tau Ceti would be more to our liking.) The "preparation for contact" hypothesis is merely a plausible idea, but it may be part of the explanation of the seemingly bizarre UFO behavior.

In any event, whether the above is merely fantasy or not, the duty of the skeptic is to confront the evidence, even if it seemingly violates all common sense.***End Quote



Some how this UFO thing and influencing the direction of human evolution lead me to brain stuff.

All this talk about the images of ADD cortexes being smaller thus we are some how once again shaded toward the “inferior side” . . .

Got me to thinking about milk of magnesia (the connection should be obvious)


Isn’t an elephants brain bigger than a human’s? Does that make the elephant smarter . . . a question often asked by man-kind . . .Does size matter . . .(my meds like gone hours ago. Please bare with me)

In the case of milk of magnesia=M.O.M. it used to be 30cc was a considered a normal dose for effectiveness, okay now days they have some thing called concentrated formula, the standard dose is half that = 15cc.

Two points:

#1) The decrease of dose size does not equate decrease effectiveness, couldn't the same hold true for brains when it comes to mass weight / size.

Which brings me eloquently to my next point

#2) always double check the label of that M.O.M especially if the stuff seems a bit think . . . it may be important later.

Okay enough diarrhea of the mouth. . . . . the last portions of an article about brain sizes and functions.


bbsonline


Quote***
Based on data presented in a recent review of endocranial capacity and estimated body size for a number of hominid species (Wood and Collard 1999), regression analysis of mean brain volume on body mass alone accounts for some 70% of the variance (p<0.001). By far the largest residual (more than 2.2 standard deviations) is associated with modern humans. If the data for moderns is removed from the set, adjusted R2 rises to 91.2%. This suggests that the great majority of the brain size increase from australopithecines to Neanderthals is a straightforward function of body mass. Only with the appearance of anatomically modern humans did brain size become somewhat disproportionate.

This formulation has further implications for our expectations of finding behavioral correlates of bigger brains. One of the current puzzles of paleoanthropology, for instance, is the apparent gap between the appearance of anatomically-modern humans some 100,000 years ago, and the advent of unequivocally modern behavior. The latter is conservatively marked by new lithic blade industries in Europe around 45,000 years ago (and probably earlier in Africa), and more liberally by the over-water peopling of Australia, at around 60,000 years. If function leads structure in brain evolution, then why are modern-looking people with modern-size brains not acting modern for some 40,000 years (Klein, 1989)?

One answer might be that the archaeological evidence for advanced behavior at deeper time ranges has not been found yet. Alternately, and in accord with our argument here, it is possible that early modern brains reached near-current dimensions for reasons unrelated to modern cognitive functions. Only later, after "extra" cortical volume had become exapted to the physical correlates of modern behavior, would the full panoply of familiar functions have appeared. We would therefore expect to find evidence for exactly such an anatomical/behavioral gap.

The broad and tight correlations between mass increases all over the brain have implications for primates and every other mammalian order. In moving away from essentialism in our thinking about brain structure and function, we are alive to a wider range of causal scenarios, and perhaps to an understanding of brain evolution that goes deeper than a few millimeters of cortex. ***End Quote

~All under lining mine

Okay any thoughts. . .
Besides I should really sleep and take my medications before posting.

[Stabile]

Originally Posted by Tammy, quoting in turn

If public opinion polls are correct, the average person today appears to be pretty prepared for open contact…

It’s doubtful such polls are meaningful, if they in fact exist. In the spirit of the post, we would certainly be skeptical of the author’s mention, particularly in such an offhand way.

(grins…)

All this talk about the images of ADD cortexes being smaller thus we are some how once again shaded toward the “inferior side” …

…and talk is all it is. No studies have shown ADD cortexes to be smaller; all that has been shown is that ADD cortexes may be smaller than comparable normal cortexes at one particular moment, under certain experimental conditions.

That bears repeating: no studies exist that suggest any such general conclusion.

We’ve looked repeatedly; if there’s any evidence out there, it’s been produced in the last six months or so, since the last time we ran around vainly trying to find anything significant.

Nor does the conclusion smaller = inferior follow, inevitable as it might be for normals. The only actual theory we know of that might connect ADD with apparently smaller cortexes under some conditions is ours, and that says smaller = more efficient as well as smaller = more highly developed.

* * * * *

The rest of that was pretty interesting. But it has the little problem of deprecating the role of adaptation, relegating the rise of modern cortical structure to some mysterious causative factors unrelated to the rise of modern behavior. (Is this the alien connection?) (grins…)

We don’t see any reason to abandon the utility of adaptation in searching for an explanation of how modern humans have evolved. All that’s needed to pull everything into a harmonious whole is a more appropriate theory accounting for the development of the modern behaviors the author uses as a metric.

Which is of course the point of this:

In moving away from essentialism in our thinking about brain structure and function, we are alive to a wider range of causal scenarios, and perhaps to an understanding of brain evolution that goes deeper than a few millimeters of cortex.

Nicely put, and we can attest to that being essential to gaining a foothold on the problem.

We’re confidant that once the author(s) begin to work through the details of how modern behaviors arise, they’ll be able to return to a more harmonious view of the process by which hominid brain mass evolved.

It’s not really mysterious at all, once you get a bead on it: the earliest increase in mass directly supported complex language and social behavior, allowing a later logical adaptation (the exaption mentioned in the original article) that enabled the modern behaviors noted.

Logical adaptation doesn’t require new mass, and the particular character of the logical difference isn’t too hard to pinpoint. We don’t usually push it back as far as this article did, but it’s the same stuff, nonetheless.

[Stabile]

A small point about the timeline of modern ideas about alien visitors:

Human neural structures are obsessive about finding patterns, even in noise. We associate almost the entire history of UFO interest and hysteria to the rise of a significant new source of ‘mental noise’, and subsequent efforts to explain the patterns perceived in that noise by an unprepared brain.

This ties in with the rise of AD/HD as well as the nominal subject of the thread, evolutionary psychology.

We associate AD/HD with the emergence of a more highly developed modeling ability in the human brain; such an ability would be expected to give rise to new perceptions that are unexplained in our previous context.

One of the primary goals of evolutionary psychology is understanding how that context arises and in turn shapes our development. The rise of new perceptions, changing the nature of that context, would likely seem pretty interesting.

[Stabile]

Originally Posted by E-boy

Large Bussoms may not necessarily be better for breast feeding, but they are a STRONG indication of general health. Waist size is less important than waist hip ratio is for example which is an indication of birth canal size and the like (SHE'S GOT BIRTHING HIPS!)

One more time:

This is only the popular misconception, not reality. Look for the earlier discussion (in this thread) of co-selection for a better grasp of how and why external factors reflect underlying details affecting reproductive suitability.

The physical connection is trivial, and in particular these two examples aren’t actually relevant. There is no relationship between breast size and general health, nor are large breasts related to success in breast feeding. Waist to hip ratio is often cited, but there isn’t actually any useful physical relationship that indicates likelihood of something like successful delivery.

We believe these examples are popular simply because co-selection isn’t better understood. The only reason for that is a lack of information; the concept goes back to Darwin himself.

Far more significant than physical factors are the social and emotional factors co-selection arbitrarily associates with externally observable physical attributes. Very little of modern reproductive success is relegated to simple physical capabilities.

[meadd823]

It’s not really mysterious at all, once you get a bead on it: the earliest increase in mass directly supported complex language and social behavior, allowing a later logical adaptation (the exaption mentioned in the original article) that enabled the modern behaviors noted.

I guess what I am having problems with is this:
Did the brain expand thus allowing for language skills such as abstract thought communication through writing or did the brain size and structures change due to the beginning of language development thus propelling it further upward to include the ability to write down these abstract thoughts. I know the answer is probably sitting six inches in front of my nose yet I am still unable to grasp it.


As far as the brain cortex size and the parts therein relating to ADD , my milk of magnesia analogy pretty well covers what I think about this particular speculation. I am a small person in physical size and structure which has it advantages and disadvantages when compared to much heavier more stout person however I fail to see how I would be considered as over all inferior simply because I have a small build.


They have begun uncovering some evidence that there are certain areas in which those with bipolar appear to excel, the same is happening with autism (the milder version) and dyslexia, Unless I am mistaken all of these “disorders” have been under investigation much longer (steadier) than ADD. My logic dictates that the reason there is evidence of these differences providing some advantages is because the study research field relating to these disorders are more mature than the scientific study of ADD which in many ways seems to mirror the very inconsistency of the ADDer attention span (which I find rather odd)


Off to check out some things in response to your post Stabile you bring up several good points (as usual) .

[meadd823]

Very little of modern reproductive success is relegated to simple physical capabilities.

Agreed . .. . .. . .. . ..from the president of the itty bitty (think I gotta stop here-lol)

[meadd823]

Even in nature there is more than one way to evolve more than one way to influence successive generation even more than one way to observe genetic variations.


Sudden Emergance abstract

***quote
Jackendoff's concern seems to stem from the view that there is only one way that evolution can proceed, through gradual change honed by natural selection. My concern is for the neglect of the vast amount of evidence supporting the theory that modern humans did not emerged in a gradual, step-wise fashion. Here I argue that hominins evolved through major evolutionary leaps, which may have numbered only two or three significant mutation ``events". Neoteny (the retention of infant or juvenile growth rates) has been the major force in the evolution of our primate ancestors and this process can explain the sudden emergence of many of the traits that define what it means to be human, including the sudden emergence of human cognition and language.
***End Quote


According to this person language and cognition did not take as long as many claim.

Below is an over all view of how genetic studies can effect results, and along with idea of how to avoid false results. He has some formula on how to configure expressions of various traits and how to sort and seperate findings.

Disadvantage of interventionist methods

***Quote
When a behavioral neuroscientist wants to investigate the function of some brain system, he will often do so by manipulating the system in question. Brain lesions or pharmacological interventions to impair the functioning of the structure of interest are among the most often used techniques. Recently, Farah [18] reviewed the problems connected with the use of the so-called locality assumption, that more or less equalizes the function of an impaired structure with the defects exhibited by the damaged brain and which is almost always invoked to interpret the results of interventionist studies. In an elegant way, Farah [18] provided evidence that this reasoning may lead to false conclusions. An additional disadvantage of interventionist studies is related to the fact that large interindividual differences in brain structure exist. This heritable variation of the brain is an aspect that many neuroscientists tend to ignore, most likely at their own peril. For example, widely divergent behavioral effects of septal [15, 16] or limbic-system lesions [1], or of pharmacological interventions in the hippocampus [38] have been reported in mice, depending on which particular inbred strain was being used.


It appears that, in the field of neurobehavioral genetics, an alternative approach that does not suffer from these drawbacks exists: using genetic methods exploiting naturally occurring individual differences as a tool for understanding brain function. No brain is like another and every individual behaves differently. The assumption that there is a link between the variability of the brain and individual talents and propensities seems quite plausible. This approach differs from the usual one in neuropsychology in two important aspects. First, no subjects are studied that, by accident or by design, have impaired or damaged brains. Rather, all subjects fall within the range of normal, non-pathological variation (provided animals carrying deleterious neurological mutations are excluded). Second, instead of comparing a damaged group with normal controls, we study a whole range of subjects and try to correlate variation at the behavioral level with that at the neuronal level. ***End quote


Comparing "damaged groups" to "not damaged groups possible to come back with false positives.


Making allowance for naturally occurring differences instead of comparing apples to oranges and saying oranges are bad.

I understood a good part of the above. He kind of lost me on the genetic mathmaticial expressions, so some added interpertataion is welcome as I scanned pretty quickly and that can lead to some missing key points. . I have to finish packing so I can pick up rental car.

See yall in a couple of days!

[SB_UK]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
back in a mo! ... :-) ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One pill makes you larger
And one pill makes you small Remember what the Dormouse said

And if you go chasing rabbits
And you know you're going to fall Remember what the Dormouse said

And the White Knight is talking backwards Remember what Dorm said
And the Red Queen's off with her head Remember what Tamm said ...:-)...

Remember what the Dormouse said: Remember what the Dormouse said
"Feed your Head
Feed your Head!"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[meadd823]

An early moring awakening had me watching tele. Mostly because I did not know they had a computer in the lobby of this hotel I could use. Notebook won't get here until tomorrow and I shall be back home by then. ..


Early morning education around 4:00 am PBS.org "How Art Made the world" Do not have time to access it right now but prehaps a project of when I return home some key points I wish to share that dawned on me before the dawn.


Cave drawing~begining of writen language!

Why did they draw in caves?

Communication (sorry no spell check short time) I was taught they were comminucating hunting stuff: however program brought out pictures on wall were of one kind of animal the people were eating a second kind of animal(they forgot to take boney trash out). So they weren't drawing menues.

Cave drawing deep inside caves difficult to get to why not draw hunting information closer to the enterance?

Dots on the drawing and animal charastics given to humans in pictures.


Drwaings in France, Europe, also much the same drawing found in and in western america. Answer inSouth aferica-Sharman Holey men see visions.

Guy named Lewis Williams should be accessable on thier site.

Also David Whitely notes are scant as it was 4:00 and I did not expect to hear any thing of use on tele.

Pictures on cave walls drawn by religious men sharman in althered states of conscoiusness. . . .they were drawing pictures of the images in thier head. Alternate states brought on by sensory deprivation in pre-historic times, which is why the drawings are so far inside the caves.

Later the Whitley guys finds some simular in California drawn by american indians~puberity ritual induced althered states on consciousness. Pictures were drawn by youngsters after having thier "visions" thus images became seen in public in center of comminuty . . .as images are through out communities now.

The images that began language were pictured induced by althered states of consiouness.

The answers to our present lay within the patterns in our past . . .circle of life ya know the white rabbit in Alice and wonder land now availible on PBS!

Mystery of white rabbit hallicinations now publicially availble in centre of community of all to understand should they so desire. Now we have the "main stream" documentation of the rrrealistic existance of white rabbits and the connection thereof. . . to emergance . . . ..and the bell goes ding!

And Many thought we were making this stuff up! Never know what comes accross the path of an ADDer in the midist of insomnia.

Nice analogies SB!

Now people have two puzzles to consider when investigating sanity either your analongy of white rabbits of my really bad spelling minus a spell check although I am trying to keep it looking some thing like englsih!

Okay meadd off the the doctor to make sure I still have ADD!

[SB_UK]

Quiet for a couple of days pondering and then deciding that it was time to and so ...

I presented the Stabile theories under the guise of ...'Systems Anthropology' from the 'UC' state Uni. network

... to a large set of Cambridge Uni informaticists and geneticists ...

... the net result ... being that ... the time to shoUT IS UPON US.

...the final question was answered as follows ...

'yes - the maker meets his maker'

... :-) ...

So E-boy --- 'Systems Anthropology' now exists --- choose a UC ... remember SF rocks ... as does SB ...

-.- :-) -.- SB.

[.-. in your sister UC; do U C? .-.]

... when he's pushed gently whilst on tippytoes.

And 'yu da' big suga' daddy of Sys Ant ... big poppa E'

And Tom,Kay ... these ideas are remarkable ... each day they become bigger ... something else - everything else falls in line ...

How about, for instance ... the shift from short-sightedness to long-sightedness with age ...?... nothing to do with any of the usual standard ... not at all ... it's all about our construction of 'rrr' and then 'RRR' ... within and without ... short and long ... ... ...

[Boots]

Cool thread.

I am just way to late to notice it.

Have you talked about viruses already?

It's just so late and it's just so long.
Has anyone talked about magnetism?

The search box is still drawing blanks
I'll print and read.

Maybe it's another thread/string?

Monk

And still no Mad Cows?

Ready for relaunch..


Standard Hairy Brain Disclaimer: I don't know anything at all.

"there is something amiss I am being iNsinCeRE. IN FACT I don't mean any of this. Still my confession draws you near." -Blues Traveler

[GlenW]

Good point boots about magnetism. It seems an essential component to life existing the way we understand it as it shields us from lethal radiation in cosmic rays. We haven't seen a strong magnetic field in solid (non-gaseous) planets in our system yet and we can't assume it's a normal event elsewhere yet.

Aliens and video games is such a laughable connection it's ignorable.

The reason if there is life elsewhere and we haven't seen it is simply distance. To imagine that a race of beings would be able to breech the incredible distances with sub-light technology in a reasonable amount of time is just not possible. According to the brightest minds (including Dr. Stephen Hawking) crossing the light-speed boundary with conventional matter can't happen ever.

To develop radio technology would require a magnetic field like ours most likely otherwise they'd be so swamped with interference that they'd never have made that leap. Not to mention spikes from nearby stars would probably blow out their electronics before long. If they communicated by light they'd have to know we are here and technologically savvy so they could point a beacon at us. Not likely.

I don't doubt with all the stars out there that there is some form of life. What I doubt is that they'd either be able to visit us or if they'd give whatever passes as a rat's *** there about us. I certainly wouldn't.

[SB_UK]

virus ... tick ... Yes
E-boy introduces mimi virus.
Remarkable virus ... I've aligned it against all others - and it is truly unique.

I believe that a synergy settled between a virus and a bacterial cell ... from which came man and woman ... respectively ... the post included
'men are from Mars and women from Venus' ...
except ...
'men are from Venus and women from Mars'
'men are from Virus and women from Mycoplasma (primitive bacteria)'
--->
I believe that the original synergy involved a trade-off between the virus (with its capacity for adaption to the environment but no capacity for generating energy) ... with the the bacterium as its host environment for survival ...
The virus cannot live without host --- and is not really even considered 'alive.'

EM ... tick ... Yes
Ideas of man being driven, powered by AND driven to transduce energy from higher energetic states down to lower states ---> reformation of matter from energy ---> towards returning us to the stasis pre-Big Bang --- of a 'neutron star - like' dense structure encapsulating all energy released during the Big Bang.
Additionally - idea that we have an EM source in our brain --- the VTA (dopaminergic neurones live here) --- the reward centre ...
... Sits next to the pineal gland (time) ... the third eye ...

...And the question --- addiction, desire, motivation, drive --->
all drop down to neuronal firing in and around the VTA --- geometric centre of the brain ---> creating an EM flux around the pineal gland ---> noting that it is known that the pineal gland (body clock) ---> functions slower, faster, differently, not at all ... under the influence, in the presence of EM fields.

Additional suggestion --- EEG and ECG ... the EM rhythms of heart and brain are scoring some sort of EM wave coherence??? as a mechanistic definition of 'desire.'

We can't make a computer 'want' to do something --- accordingly we must understand the common root of desire.

The ECG cannot really alter --- EEG can ... on account of neuroplasticity occurring at >>> time-frames compared to morphological change --- we can't grow to be 20 ft tall in the near future --- but we can develop a much richer, more heavily firing network around VTA ... perhaps ...

Represents a shift in logical structure.
Not (as such) ... understood by analogy with physical change ...
logical change >>>time>>> physical, anatomic, morphological change

... thoughts ...

... 2nd thermodynamic law describes energetic dissipation ::High -> Low::
... post-Big Bang, the drive must surely be to recover all energy into matter in a single structure.
... Requires reduction of energetic state of 'energy' into a global minimum.
... We're driven by the basic 'desire' of energy to give up its higher energetic state ---> for a lower energetic state ... akin to t#2 ...
... Local minima are formed on the transition towards global minima.
... ???emergence is the creation of a structure (either local minima or global minima) ... most likely local :-) ... in which either a structure representing some higher energy component has coalesced into a more complex structure (lower energetic states predicating in on more complex physical orientations) ...
... or some structure for reducing the energy state of matter is produced.
... the mind, I believe possesses a data driven architecture ---> and uses the antagonism between use and creation of ATP towards a drop in the energetic state of the 'energy' provided by the environment ... sun etc ... ... ...

The mind as ... ... some structure for reducing the energy state of matter is produced ... though maybe also ... ...

->first-> ... ... ... into a more complex structure ...
->then-> ... ... ... for reducing the energy state of matter ...

Diamond vs graphite (from carbon) represents the former (i.e. a structure representing some higher energy component has coalesced into a more complex structure ... initial subcomponents settling into a lower energetic state)

[SB_UK]

...into a lower (the lowest?) energetic state...

... StabilI Té ...

~~~Thanks~~~

S

[meadd823]

the shift from short-sightedness to long-sightedness with age ...?

Which makes for a sdrawkcab glasses wearer. While most of my same age peers are putting reading glasses to see small stuff I am pulling mine off to see smaller print. It works reverse or esever.


Gotta go to work now. . . see yall later!